Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
Today, my dad sold all his hbar and launched the H-Network. Learn what it does here.
They are now looking for investors.
My dad is the Stephen Curry of tech. He is revolutionary.medium.com/@therealdaniel…
They are now looking for investors.
My dad is the Stephen Curry of tech. He is revolutionary.medium.com/@therealdaniel…
Did you know the H-Network can be licensed for use by state and federal governments to help preserve life in cases where the U.S. officials thinks a nuclear missile incoming attack is imminent?
Currently I have 55 followers. So once I am at 155, I will start DM’ing! Get ready, get ready, get ready!
Did you know? The H-Network can drive traffic to all chains?
Did you know? The H-Network can drive traffic to all chains?
President Trump nominated Dr. Nicole Saphier, a breast radiologist and former Fox News contributor at Memorial Sloan Kettering, as his third choice for U.S. Surgeon General on May 1, 2026.
1)
1)
The nomination follows withdrawal of Dr. Janette Nesheiwat's bid in 2025 over academic credential concerns and Dr. Casey Means' stalled Senate confirmation due to questions on her incomplete residency, inactive license, and vaccine positions.
2)
2)
Saphier supports aspects of the MAHA agenda like reducing ultraprocessed foods while advocating vaccinations, patient choice, and women's health initiatives, positioning her as a more conventional pick with clinical credentials.
3)
3)
[ALL EXTRACTS ARE FROM CHAT GPT]
The paper by Charles Matthew Whish was titled:
“On the Hindu Quadrature of the Circle, and Infinite Series for π” -1835-
Whish didn’t say “Newton copied India.”
He was more measured—but his implication was clear:
youtube.com/shorts/FRYxDZ6…
The paper by Charles Matthew Whish was titled:
“On the Hindu Quadrature of the Circle, and Infinite Series for π” -1835-
Whish didn’t say “Newton copied India.”
He was more measured—but his implication was clear:
youtube.com/shorts/FRYxDZ6…
Advanced mathematical ideas resembling calculus existed in India well before Newton.
Whish studied palm-leaf manuscripts attributed to Madhava of Sangamagrama and his successors.
What startled him:
They had infinite series expansions for π, sine, cosine, and arctangent
Whish studied palm-leaf manuscripts attributed to Madhava of Sangamagrama and his successors.
What startled him:
They had infinite series expansions for π, sine, cosine, and arctangent
These were strikingly similar to the later work of Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
And crucially—they predated them by 200–300 years.
The Kerala School discovered key building blocks of Calculus earlier.
And crucially—they predated them by 200–300 years.
The Kerala School discovered key building blocks of Calculus earlier.
If I sold my company tomorrow, I would build my next million-dollar business from scratch in under 90 days — using only Claude.
This is the exact system I’ve refined for myself.
On day one, I’d assemble a complete 5-person AI team.
Steal the full playbook below. 👇
This is the exact system I’ve refined for myself.
On day one, I’d assemble a complete 5-person AI team.
Steal the full playbook below. 👇
Too many founders fall in love with their idea before checking if real people actually need it. I’ve seen it cost fortunes.
That’s why my first move is always validation — powered by AI.
Here’s the precise 5-role AI team I’d deploy immediately:
That’s why my first move is always validation — powered by AI.
Here’s the precise 5-role AI team I’d deploy immediately:
Role 1: The Researcher
Task: Deeply understand the customer’s most pressing problems with real-world proof.
My prompt:
“Act as a meticulous senior researcher. Identify the top 5 most painful, urgent problems for [target audience]. Draw evidence from forums, reviews, social media, and real conversations. For each problem, quote the exact language customers use, what they’ve tried already, and where current solutions fall short.”
Task: Deeply understand the customer’s most pressing problems with real-world proof.
My prompt:
“Act as a meticulous senior researcher. Identify the top 5 most painful, urgent problems for [target audience]. Draw evidence from forums, reviews, social media, and real conversations. For each problem, quote the exact language customers use, what they’ve tried already, and where current solutions fall short.”
Recently I found a “secret weapon” from Google that makes learning much more effective.
Its name is NotebookLM.
Upload lecture notes, PDFs, or book chapters, then ask him to test you like a fierce lecturer.
This is not just an ordinary summary. It’s like having a private professor 24 hours. Want to know how? This thread must be read. 👇
Its name is NotebookLM.
Upload lecture notes, PDFs, or book chapters, then ask him to test you like a fierce lecturer.
This is not just an ordinary summary. It’s like having a private professor 24 hours. Want to know how? This thread must be read. 👇
I used to worry a lot before the exam.
Reread the notes, but it’s still blank right in front of the question.
Now? I use NotebookLM to make a mock exam that looks super similar to the real exam. The result? Self-confidence increased drastically.
These are the 10 most powerful prompts I use:
Reread the notes, but it’s still blank right in front of the question.
Now? I use NotebookLM to make a mock exam that looks super similar to the real exam. The result? Self-confidence increased drastically.
These are the 10 most powerful prompts I use:
Prompt 1 (Most Powerful):
“Act as my strict university professor. Using ONLY the uploaded sources, make a full mock exam for this course.
• 20 MCQs
• 10 short answers
• 5 long answers
• 3 case studies
Customise the difficulty level with the real final exam.”
“Act as my strict university professor. Using ONLY the uploaded sources, make a full mock exam for this course.
• 20 MCQs
• 10 short answers
• 5 long answers
• 3 case studies
Customise the difficulty level with the real final exam.”
After 50, you lose muscle every single year.
Not because you're aging.
Because you're starving your body of the right building blocks.
Two studies just dropped this month proving it.
Here's what they found and how to reverse it 🧵
Not because you're aging.
Because you're starving your body of the right building blocks.
Two studies just dropped this month proving it.
Here's what they found and how to reverse it 🧵
Study #1 published March 2026.
38,073 adults across 27 European countries tracked over 2 years.
The finding:
Low protein intake = significantly higher rates of weak grip, slow walking speed, and physical decline.
The damage starts at 50. Most never recover.
38,073 adults across 27 European countries tracked over 2 years.
The finding:
Low protein intake = significantly higher rates of weak grip, slow walking speed, and physical decline.
The damage starts at 50. Most never recover.
Study #2 published this month in Frontiers in Nutrition.
The takeaway: the standard protein recommendation (0.8g/kg) is dangerously low for adults over 50.
Why?
Aging muscles develop "anabolic resistance".
They stop responding to protein the way younger muscles do.
The takeaway: the standard protein recommendation (0.8g/kg) is dangerously low for adults over 50.
Why?
Aging muscles develop "anabolic resistance".
They stop responding to protein the way younger muscles do.
Random Friday evening thought - it’s been a long, hard week despite the low posting frequency.
Vibe coding is bringing on a new age of cyber in-security. Don’t trust any software outside of established Big Tech. Don’t fill out random forms online if you can help it.
GTFO Ice, launched by Miles Taylor, a so-called security expert with Google, is going to learn this the hard way. Tomorrow.
Vibe coding is bringing on a new age of cyber in-security. Don’t trust any software outside of established Big Tech. Don’t fill out random forms online if you can help it.
GTFO Ice, launched by Miles Taylor, a so-called security expert with Google, is going to learn this the hard way. Tomorrow.
Miles, you have exactly 17,584 sign-ups as of writing. You are truly the eighth wonder of the world. No obvious DEI credentials and yet you became a security lead for the most prominent tech company in the world.
Oh you are on X. @MilesTaylorUSA
🚩 THREAD: A 2-Minute
Meditation to Experience Hanuman (Not Just Worship Him) 🧵👇
Most people pray to Hanuman…
but very few feel Hanuman.
What if I told you:
you can experience his presence in just 2 minutes a day? ⚡
Here’s the simplest method. 🔥
Meditation to Experience Hanuman (Not Just Worship Him) 🧵👇
Most people pray to Hanuman…
but very few feel Hanuman.
What if I told you:
you can experience his presence in just 2 minutes a day? ⚡
Here’s the simplest method. 🔥
1.
2.
There is a peculiar tendency among crowds—particularly those that fancy themselves technical, principled, and ideologically pure—to require an enemy in order to maintain the illusion of unity. Not agreement, mind you. Agreement is far too demanding. Unity, in these circles, is little more than synchronized hostility. Remove the object of disdain, and what remains is not harmony, but noise—petty, incessant, irreconcilable noise.
BTC has, for some time, been less a system than a coalition of disagreements temporarily disguised as a network. Its participants do not share a coherent vision; they share a convenient adversary. The factions—economic minimalists, fee-market purists, speculative opportunists, protocol tinkerers, ossification zealots—have never truly aligned. They have merely tolerated one another under the dim, flickering light of a common opposition. That opposition, inconveniently for them, has been singular.
The uncomfortable truth is that the only thing preventing fragmentation was not technical consensus, nor economic inevitability, nor some grand philosophical cohesion. It was focus. A target. A figure upon which every grievance, every insecurity, every contradiction could be projected. That focal point served as a crude but effective binding agent. Remove it, and the adhesive fails.
During COPA, the spectacle was almost theatrical in its clarity. Individuals and groups that could not agree on block size, transaction policy, scaling philosophy, governance, or even the definition of the system itself suddenly found remarkable coherence in opposition. It was not that they converged intellectually; they converged emotionally. They did not resolve their disputes; they postponed them. One does not need unity of purpose when one has unity of resentment.
Had the outcome been different—had that focal point remained intact in their narrative as a defeated adversary—the cohesion would not have dissolved. It would have intensified. The myth would have grown. The divisions would have remained carefully concealed beneath a shared story: that victory had been achieved, that the matter was settled, that the system could now proceed unchallenged. Of course, it would have been nonsense, but nonsense, when collectively agreed upon, can be remarkably stabilizing.
Instead, what emerges is something far less convenient for them: the absence of a unifying antagonist. And without that, the underlying fractures are no longer optional—they are inevitable.
What follows is not subtle. It will not be a neat schism, nor a dignified bifurcation. It will be fragmentation in the most inelegant sense. Not one fork, nor two, but a proliferation—each justified by its own narrow doctrine, each claiming legitimacy, each convinced of its necessity. When a system cannot adapt internally, it externalizes its disagreements. It forks not because it is strong, but because it lacks the capacity to reconcile.
And here lies the deeper irony. The very individuals who insisted on immutability, on the sanctity of an unchanging protocol, will find themselves repeatedly altering their own environment—not by design, but by fracture. They will not call it failure. They will call it choice. They will insist that multiplicity is strength, that divergence is innovation, that fragmentation is freedom. Language, after all, is wonderfully accommodating when one has no intention of being precise.
Different groups want different things. That is not controversial; it is structural. Some want higher throughput, others want constrained capacity. Some want programmability, others want austerity. Some want institutional alignment, others want ideological purity. These are not minor variations—they are mutually incompatible objectives. If the system cannot accommodate them natively, then the pressure does not disappear. It relocates. And the only mechanism available for relocation is division.
...
BTC has, for some time, been less a system than a coalition of disagreements temporarily disguised as a network. Its participants do not share a coherent vision; they share a convenient adversary. The factions—economic minimalists, fee-market purists, speculative opportunists, protocol tinkerers, ossification zealots—have never truly aligned. They have merely tolerated one another under the dim, flickering light of a common opposition. That opposition, inconveniently for them, has been singular.
The uncomfortable truth is that the only thing preventing fragmentation was not technical consensus, nor economic inevitability, nor some grand philosophical cohesion. It was focus. A target. A figure upon which every grievance, every insecurity, every contradiction could be projected. That focal point served as a crude but effective binding agent. Remove it, and the adhesive fails.
During COPA, the spectacle was almost theatrical in its clarity. Individuals and groups that could not agree on block size, transaction policy, scaling philosophy, governance, or even the definition of the system itself suddenly found remarkable coherence in opposition. It was not that they converged intellectually; they converged emotionally. They did not resolve their disputes; they postponed them. One does not need unity of purpose when one has unity of resentment.
Had the outcome been different—had that focal point remained intact in their narrative as a defeated adversary—the cohesion would not have dissolved. It would have intensified. The myth would have grown. The divisions would have remained carefully concealed beneath a shared story: that victory had been achieved, that the matter was settled, that the system could now proceed unchallenged. Of course, it would have been nonsense, but nonsense, when collectively agreed upon, can be remarkably stabilizing.
Instead, what emerges is something far less convenient for them: the absence of a unifying antagonist. And without that, the underlying fractures are no longer optional—they are inevitable.
What follows is not subtle. It will not be a neat schism, nor a dignified bifurcation. It will be fragmentation in the most inelegant sense. Not one fork, nor two, but a proliferation—each justified by its own narrow doctrine, each claiming legitimacy, each convinced of its necessity. When a system cannot adapt internally, it externalizes its disagreements. It forks not because it is strong, but because it lacks the capacity to reconcile.
And here lies the deeper irony. The very individuals who insisted on immutability, on the sanctity of an unchanging protocol, will find themselves repeatedly altering their own environment—not by design, but by fracture. They will not call it failure. They will call it choice. They will insist that multiplicity is strength, that divergence is innovation, that fragmentation is freedom. Language, after all, is wonderfully accommodating when one has no intention of being precise.
Different groups want different things. That is not controversial; it is structural. Some want higher throughput, others want constrained capacity. Some want programmability, others want austerity. Some want institutional alignment, others want ideological purity. These are not minor variations—they are mutually incompatible objectives. If the system cannot accommodate them natively, then the pressure does not disappear. It relocates. And the only mechanism available for relocation is division.
...
The notion that BTC will simply decline into mediocrity is almost charitable. Mediocrity implies stability. What is more likely is a slow, undignified splintering into variants, each less coherent than the last, each attempting to solve a problem that was never resolved at the foundation. It will not merely be poor; it will be plural in the most chaotic sense—multiple implementations, multiple narratives, multiple incompatible futures all claiming to be the present.
As for what must be done, the answer is neither reactive nor theatrical. There is no need to chase fragmentation; it will occur without assistance. The more effective approach is to remain precisely what has proven disruptive: consistent, singular, and unwilling to dilute definition. Systems built on clarity do not require enemies to function. Systems built on ambiguity do.
There is a temptation, of course, to engage—to correct every misstatement, to respond to every provocation, to insert oneself back into the center of their discourse. That would be a mistake. The moment one becomes the focal point again, one restores their cohesion. One gives them back the very mechanism that prevented their collapse.
Better, then, to allow the absence to do its work.
Let them argue without a target. Let them attempt alignment without opposition. Let them discover, slowly and publicly, that what they called consensus was merely convenience. The resulting spectacle will be less dramatic than a single decisive failure, but far more instructive. It will reveal that the system was never held together by shared understanding, but by shared aversion.
And when that aversion has nowhere left to go, it turns inward.
As for what must be done, the answer is neither reactive nor theatrical. There is no need to chase fragmentation; it will occur without assistance. The more effective approach is to remain precisely what has proven disruptive: consistent, singular, and unwilling to dilute definition. Systems built on clarity do not require enemies to function. Systems built on ambiguity do.
There is a temptation, of course, to engage—to correct every misstatement, to respond to every provocation, to insert oneself back into the center of their discourse. That would be a mistake. The moment one becomes the focal point again, one restores their cohesion. One gives them back the very mechanism that prevented their collapse.
Better, then, to allow the absence to do its work.
Let them argue without a target. Let them attempt alignment without opposition. Let them discover, slowly and publicly, that what they called consensus was merely convenience. The resulting spectacle will be less dramatic than a single decisive failure, but far more instructive. It will reveal that the system was never held together by shared understanding, but by shared aversion.
And when that aversion has nowhere left to go, it turns inward.
Mark the time with something more durable than enthusiasm. Two and a half years will suffice—not tomorrow, not next quarter, not in the impatient rhythm of those who demand immediate spectacle as proof. Fix the horizon properly, then return to it with a memory that has not been conveniently edited.
At the outset, there will be denial. There is always denial. It arrives dressed as confidence, speaking in the brittle tone of those who mistake repetition for certainty. “Nothing has changed,” they will insist, while everything quietly rearranges beneath their feet. They will demand immediacy—results by the week, vindication by the month—because long horizons expose short thinking. Resist that trivial cadence. The process in motion is not theatrical; it is structural.
Observe instead.
Watch the emergence of the so-called quantum-resistant variants—each promising salvation from a threat not yet realized, each quietly redefining the system they claim to preserve. They will not agree on implementation, nor on necessity, nor even on timing. Yet each will insist on inevitability, because inevitability is the last refuge of uncertain engineering.
Watch the institutional strains—those shaped not by protocol integrity but by regulatory appetite and capital preference. These will not announce themselves as compromises; they will present as maturity. They will speak the language of compliance and stability while quietly bending the system toward external constraint. And in doing so, they will diverge, because institutions do not align by principle; they align by jurisdiction, and jurisdictions do not agree.
Watch the covariance experiments—subtle at first, cloaked in technical language designed to discourage scrutiny. These will fracture along lines so abstract that only their consequences will be visible: incompatible assumptions, divergent risk models, systems that cannot reconcile because they were never designed to do so.
Watch the sidechain derivatives—each a polite admission that the base cannot accommodate what is desired. They will proliferate under the banner of flexibility, each extending functionality in a direction the others do not share. And when extension becomes contradiction, the polite façade dissolves.
None of these developments will exist in isolation. They will overlap, intersect, and—most importantly—conflict. Each group will believe it is extending or protecting the system. Each will claim legitimacy. And because the base cannot natively reconcile these competing objectives, the pressure will not dissipate. It will fracture.
Do not expect a single, dramatic schism. That is far too orderly. Expect instead a multiplication—variants emerging not from strength, but from unresolved disagreement. Some will retain the BTC designation, clinging to it as though a name were a substitute for coherence. Others will adopt new tickers, new identities, new narratives, while quietly inheriting the same unresolved contradictions. The distinction will be cosmetic. The origin is shared.
They will argue over which is “true,” as though truth were determined by volume. They will litigate meaning in forums and conferences, substituting rhetoric for resolution. Some will refuse to engage, choosing instead to depart under a different banner, insisting they have transcended the conflict when they have merely relocated it.
And throughout, there will be a persistent insistence that nothing fundamental has changed.
That insistence is the most reliable indicator that everything has.
So record this. Fix it in place without embellishment, without revision. Return to it not in a week, nor in the shallow impatience of those who require instant validation, but at the appointed time. Two and a half years. Enough for divergence to become visible, for contradictions to mature into separation, for the quiet fractures to render themselves undeniable.
Watch carefully, and with discipline.
..
At the outset, there will be denial. There is always denial. It arrives dressed as confidence, speaking in the brittle tone of those who mistake repetition for certainty. “Nothing has changed,” they will insist, while everything quietly rearranges beneath their feet. They will demand immediacy—results by the week, vindication by the month—because long horizons expose short thinking. Resist that trivial cadence. The process in motion is not theatrical; it is structural.
Observe instead.
Watch the emergence of the so-called quantum-resistant variants—each promising salvation from a threat not yet realized, each quietly redefining the system they claim to preserve. They will not agree on implementation, nor on necessity, nor even on timing. Yet each will insist on inevitability, because inevitability is the last refuge of uncertain engineering.
Watch the institutional strains—those shaped not by protocol integrity but by regulatory appetite and capital preference. These will not announce themselves as compromises; they will present as maturity. They will speak the language of compliance and stability while quietly bending the system toward external constraint. And in doing so, they will diverge, because institutions do not align by principle; they align by jurisdiction, and jurisdictions do not agree.
Watch the covariance experiments—subtle at first, cloaked in technical language designed to discourage scrutiny. These will fracture along lines so abstract that only their consequences will be visible: incompatible assumptions, divergent risk models, systems that cannot reconcile because they were never designed to do so.
Watch the sidechain derivatives—each a polite admission that the base cannot accommodate what is desired. They will proliferate under the banner of flexibility, each extending functionality in a direction the others do not share. And when extension becomes contradiction, the polite façade dissolves.
None of these developments will exist in isolation. They will overlap, intersect, and—most importantly—conflict. Each group will believe it is extending or protecting the system. Each will claim legitimacy. And because the base cannot natively reconcile these competing objectives, the pressure will not dissipate. It will fracture.
Do not expect a single, dramatic schism. That is far too orderly. Expect instead a multiplication—variants emerging not from strength, but from unresolved disagreement. Some will retain the BTC designation, clinging to it as though a name were a substitute for coherence. Others will adopt new tickers, new identities, new narratives, while quietly inheriting the same unresolved contradictions. The distinction will be cosmetic. The origin is shared.
They will argue over which is “true,” as though truth were determined by volume. They will litigate meaning in forums and conferences, substituting rhetoric for resolution. Some will refuse to engage, choosing instead to depart under a different banner, insisting they have transcended the conflict when they have merely relocated it.
And throughout, there will be a persistent insistence that nothing fundamental has changed.
That insistence is the most reliable indicator that everything has.
So record this. Fix it in place without embellishment, without revision. Return to it not in a week, nor in the shallow impatience of those who require instant validation, but at the appointed time. Two and a half years. Enough for divergence to become visible, for contradictions to mature into separation, for the quiet fractures to render themselves undeniable.
Watch carefully, and with discipline.
..
how we implemented Moondream inference on Apple Silicon (spoiler: we don't use MLX)
⬇️ (1/N)
⬇️ (1/N)
Photon, our inference engine, isn't fast just because of GPU kernels. A lot of the speedup comes from engine-level work: request scheduling, prefix caching, image processing, all tuned to keep the GPU saturated. moondream.ai/p/photon
Our engine is highly coupled with PyTorch. ~15k lines of Python and Rust... scheduler, KV manager, radix tree prefix caching, LoRA, image pipeline, skill state machines.
Porting all of that to MLX would've mean maintaining two parallel runtimes forever... ouch.
Porting all of that to MLX would've mean maintaining two parallel runtimes forever... ouch.
🚨 BREAKING: “Death to America” Comes to @virginia_tech
At Virginia Tech tonight, Mohamed Abdou opened his “Death to the Akademy” speech by declaring, “We are in a war, a racial religious war since 1492.”
He told students America is “the larger monster,” praised “General Sinwar,” called October 7 the “blessed day of Al-Aqsa Flood,” and said jihad can mean defending life “using the sword.”
Then he praised students as “a branch of the resistance” and said they were recognized as “a branch of the mujahideen.”
And when he explained “Death to America,” he was explicit.
“When we say Death to America, we mean, and loud and clear, a total end to U.S. empire. The destruction of this crusading settler colony, their entire project.”
Virginia Tech spent the last few days insisting this event was not happening. It happened. And this is what was said.
Stick around, because there is a lot more to unpack. We are not even halfway through his speech yet.
At Virginia Tech tonight, Mohamed Abdou opened his “Death to the Akademy” speech by declaring, “We are in a war, a racial religious war since 1492.”
He told students America is “the larger monster,” praised “General Sinwar,” called October 7 the “blessed day of Al-Aqsa Flood,” and said jihad can mean defending life “using the sword.”
Then he praised students as “a branch of the resistance” and said they were recognized as “a branch of the mujahideen.”
And when he explained “Death to America,” he was explicit.
“When we say Death to America, we mean, and loud and clear, a total end to U.S. empire. The destruction of this crusading settler colony, their entire project.”
Virginia Tech spent the last few days insisting this event was not happening. It happened. And this is what was said.
Stick around, because there is a lot more to unpack. We are not even halfway through his speech yet.
Attention: @CACIIntl, @SystemsPlanning, @MITREcorp, @LeidosInc, @northropgrumman, and @LockheedMartin.
You all have documented partnerships, funding relationships, or national-security recruiting pipelines with Virginia Tech.
You may want to know what Mohamed Abdou told students there.
He urged people to “halt the weapons industry,” “destroy locally where you are at,” and disrupt “every single choke point” and “every single supply chain bottleneck” by “all means necessary.”
Why should any defense contractor keep investing in a university that is trying to downplay this?
You all have documented partnerships, funding relationships, or national-security recruiting pipelines with Virginia Tech.
You may want to know what Mohamed Abdou told students there.
He urged people to “halt the weapons industry,” “destroy locally where you are at,” and disrupt “every single choke point” and “every single supply chain bottleneck” by “all means necessary.”
Why should any defense contractor keep investing in a university that is trying to downplay this?
You already heard Mohamed Abdou frame this as a “racial war” and invoke jihad.
He told students not merely to oppose Hitler, but to “understand what Hitler stands for.” Then he immediately claimed the “modern Zionist entity” manifests a “Hitlerite mentality.”
He went further, racializing Jews as white people who can pass unnoticed unless they are “wearing a yarmulke,” which erases the identity and lived reality of Jews of every background worldwide.
He told students not merely to oppose Hitler, but to “understand what Hitler stands for.” Then he immediately claimed the “modern Zionist entity” manifests a “Hitlerite mentality.”
He went further, racializing Jews as white people who can pass unnoticed unless they are “wearing a yarmulke,” which erases the identity and lived reality of Jews of every background worldwide.
I went to police and RCMP regarding corruption and organized crime involving developers and planning issues I reported to OPP and they gave me a cop to talk to. I told him everything I knew then I learned he was the son of Ryan Amato. thetrillium.ca/news/the-trill…
I knew there was illegal banking and fraud linked to Ontario developers and groups in Germany. I gave testimony on it at Queens Park during Bill 111 for Ontario’s Anti SLAPP law.
There were a lot of questionable things around the Century Initiative.
